Favorite Source Port? (Multiple Choice Poll)

20 minutes ago, Edward850 said:

I didn't think the flying physics in ZDoom were any different than from vanilla. Not intentionally anyway. What do you notice that's different?

They slide when hit, much much further than in prb+ or vanilla ports.  Try playing sunlust map 25(infinitely tall actors on) and do the revenant/caco room first.  Sunder map 5 is also a good example since there's no obvious blocking lines or close borders in the map.

4 hours ago, Fonze said:

 

You may be interested to know (or may already know, heh) that Crispy had support for Heretic, making it one of the few non-zDoom ports that supports limit-removing Heretic. While the more recent Crispies have discontinued Heretic support, if you look up some older versions you'll find Crispy Heretic :)

The problem is that, being discontinued, some of the limits are still there, and is lacking tons of features that currently Crispy Doom have, as far as I know. For example, when I tried Heretic Treasure Chest (text file says "limit-removing") with Crispy Heretic 1.5 or 3.0, one of those, the second map had missing textures or whatever the bug is called, but in ZDoom it worked fine. Unless the text file specifies Crispy Heretic as one of the ports used for testing, I'll stick with ZDoom at the moment, which is, fine :/ 

9 hours ago, Edward850 said:

Update to 1803.

Thanks, will see what I can do. I've missed playing Doom 64 EX. Never ever want to go back to that awful N64 controller for it. 

EDIT: It worked, just having problems with the lighting textures on the key doors. EDIT again: I think I was wrong. It's the builder mode that works. The Doom64 application still loads and plays with extremely super slow FPS once you start a level.

ZDoom. It's the source port I've been using for the longest time until its final official release. GZDoom comes a very, very close second, but that's only because that's being actively developed and more and more projects require that source port.

Skulltag/Zandronum due to my fond memories of my first experiences playing Doom online and being a clan for a very brief period of time.

8 hours ago, Edward850 said:

Update to 1803.

Yeah right. Update to 1803 to fuck your own PC. No thanks. 7-Zip isn't even working properly on my PC (mouse cursor goes to the bottom right corner of the screen whenever trying to select anything.)

Obvious choice but...

Crispy Doom

1 hour ago, DeadAstronaut said:

The Doom64 application still loads and plays with extremely super slow FPS once you start a level.

Curious. What GPU do you have? Doom64 Ex uses a super old OpenGL spec that AMD does not play nice with.

51 minutes ago, Cacodemon345 said:

Yeah right. Update to 1803 to fuck your own PC. No thanks. 7-Zip isn't even working properly on my PC (mouse cursor goes to the bottom right corner of the screen whenever trying to select anything.)

1803 fixes legacy mouse support, even with 7-zip. I have given you the information, at one point you will have to accept it.

GZDoom for me. I occasionally try other source ports but always end up coming back to it. Second and third place to Crispy and Chocolate for some nostalgia. Also, if I must be honest, Doom Legacy gets a vote from me. It was my first advanced source port and still has a soft spot in my heart.

Down at the bottom are Doomsday and PRBoom+. Doomsday just feels like it prioritizes flashiness at the massive expense of functionality. And for PRBoom+, between the abysmal mouse support, confusing menus, and hipster status, I just can't warm to it as much as the other ports.

30 minutes ago, Edward850 said:

1803 fixes legacy mouse support, even with 7-zip. I have given you the information, at one point you will have to accept it.

I know. But it may fuck my PC in the other way.

GZDoom for me. It really is the only one delivering the whole package - modernized visuals, good editing features and overall the best content support.

As for the rest, some quick notes:

Doomsday looks nice but performance is far, far too bad to even be considered. Also, still no Boom support which is a big minus.

Chocolate, Retro, Crispy: No, I have no interest in stuff that pretends it's 1998.

Prboom+: Good for demos, but for actual playing I don't need it.
EDGE: It's getting good again. Here's some hope. At its current state I'd pass, though because it still seems a bit buggy.

ZDoom: Do people really still care? It's been abandoned and GZDoom has already made some significant improvements over it in the software rendering department.

Eternity: Two issues strike me: A) It's about features but makes absolutely no effort to run feature-rich maps made for other ports. As a result the offering of content is so limited that its advantage over PrBoom is entirely nullified. Over the last 5 years I have pulled it out twice to play some maps, to be immediately retired afterward. B) Of the feature centric ports it is the only one without a hardware renderer, and I think this limits its appeal even further. Which is sad because it actually could be so much more popular if it tried to step out of its sandbox.

2 minutes ago, Hell Theatre said:

It really is the only one delivering the whole package

[...]

I have no interest in stuff that pretends it's 1998

cmon gz don't be like that, we all know that gimped-ass multiplayer, no demo support and performance issues not present in ports like prboom =/= "the whole package", we all also know that "pretending it's 1998" is the only reason this game still has such a strong pulse. I will concede that it's the best port to show newcomers to Doom though what with the purdy visuals and abundance of super fancy mods.

6 minutes ago, Doomkid said:

cmon gz don't be like that, we all know that gimped-ass multiplayer,

Yopu know that most other ports have NO working multiplayer at all, right?

6 minutes ago, Doomkid said:

no demo support

It does have demo support - just not vanilla compatible demo support. The engine wouldn't even exist in its current form if it had to keep all the stuff that is needed for vanilla compatible demo support. I think it's entirely reasonable to use a separate engine that specializes in demo playback if demos are of interest, instead of insisting that every engine gets bogged down by the restrictions this imposes. If you want both at the same time you most likely end up with some ugly compromises along the way - or get held up for far too long by blending the new features with the needs of playing back vanilla demos. Have you ever looked at Eternity and all the code duplication it needs to support both its features and demo playback?

6 minutes ago, Doomkid said:

and performance issues not present in ports like prboom

You are aware that the complexity of those two engines cannot be compared, do you? If you want to get the same performance out of a feature rich port as you get out of a basic-level port, you would have to strip it down to that basic level. And what for? That I actually can run NUTS.wad at full frame rate?

6 minutes ago, Doomkid said:

=/= "the whole package", we all also know that "pretending it's 1998" is the only reason this game still has such a strong pulse. I will concede that it's the best port to show newcomers to Doom though what with the purdy visuals and abundance of super fancy mods.

So what? You are the "real" Doomer because you have "seen the light" and only use those ports which reenact what Doom would have been 20 years ago? And those who use GZDoom, its hardware renderer and possibly its fancy effects are yet to be converted?

Correct me if I am wrong, but that's the vibe I get from that statement.

I have like several GZdoom configs for the type of Doom I'm feeling, ranging from non-interpolated 320x200 paletted vanilla (or as close as GZdoom can get to it), to 1080p 60FPS free mouselook and jumping.

Though I usually like using Chocolate doom for things intended for Vanilla.

2 hours ago, Doomkid said:

cmon gz don't be like that, we all know that gimped-ass multiplayer, no demo support and performance issues not present in ports like prboom =/= "the whole package", we all also know that "pretending it's 1998" is the only reason this game still has such a strong pulse. I will concede that it's the best port to show newcomers to Doom though what with the purdy visuals and abundance of super fancy mods.

I think GZDoom's main problem is more to do with it being a more "jack of all trades" thing. It's not particularly good at playing any one Doom based game (except maybe Hexen? I'm not sure how accurate its Hexen is), and coupled with its default settings, results in a comparatively distant replication. If you wanted a Doom example, its default behavior for the invisibility sphere is of Hexen, not Doom, drastically changing its gameplay.

I also think its Strife Veteran Edition support could be far better than it currently is.

#1 Doom2.exe, the original Dos port, version 1.9.

#2 Chocolate Doom.

#3 Eternity Engine.

1 hour ago, Hell Theatre said:

excuses for things gzdoom can't do

You said it has "the whole package" and I pointed out various important things it doesn't have, calm down

2 hours ago, Hell Theatre said:

So what? You are the "real" Doomer because you have "seen the light" and only use those ports which reenact what Doom would have been 20 years ago?

Don't try and turn your elitist snobbery around on me, you were the one who came in here shitting on ports like Chocolate Doom and Crispy Doom. Throw sophistry at me all you like though if it helps

Chocolate Doom/Crispy Doom for classic style PWADs, Boom for boom compatible stuff & GZDoom for any mods or technical advanced stuff.

21 hours ago, Fonze said:

heretic support. 

:'(

On topic: 
GZDoom :D

11 hours ago, Fonze said:

While the more recent Crispies have discontinued Heretic support,

Why did they choose to discontinue Heretic support? Anything from Heretic that slows down Crispy's development?

These posts may shed some light on it, and if there is something more to share perhaps @fabian can clarify.

https://www.doomworld.com/forum/post/1739382

Quote

fabian said:

What this means it that as it is now, you may build Crispy Heretic/Hexen/Strife by simply uncommenting them in the build scripts and they will work out of the box (but they won't have any of the advancements added to the Doom code base within the previous three years). However, when rendering has been changed to true-color this won't be the case anymore without substantial adjustments to these three games. And as long as nobody steps up as a volunteer maintainer, this won't happen, because I have neither the time nor the incentive to maintain these additional three myself.

https://www.doomworld.com/forum/post/1788593

Quote

fabian said:

Hey guys, I am just here to tell you that Crispy Heretic (and Hexen and Strife) is still there and regularly synced with the (admittedly, sparse) commits to the Choco code base. It is just that Crispy Heretic/Hexen/Strife are not built and released anymore, because I haven't done any changes to them since the initial release (though, I have turned Heretic limit-removing at one point).

https://www.doomworld.com/forum/post/1823758

Quote

fabian said:

I'd like WinMBF to build cleanly on 64-bit systems and would like to introduce some convenience feature for building and running on Unix-based systems. As for Crispy Heretic, there is an ongoing effort, but things are moving slowly. ;)

my fave port is that edition of gzscoredoom where no matter what you did with the brightness/gamma/colour sliders your screen would always be slightly more gray than when you entered the menu

33 minutes ago, yakfak said:

my fave port is that edition of gzscoredoom where no matter what you did with the brightness/gamma/colour sliders your screen would always be slightly more gray than when you entered the menu

GZScoreDoom is dead. There's no chance it would be updated ever.

26 minutes ago, Cacodemon345 said:

GZScoreDoom is dead. There's no chance it would be updated ever.

Can't ZScript achieve what GZScoreDoom was doing?

i have 8 sourceports on my computer as of this moment.

i think my favourite ports of the 8 are zdoom 2.8.1 and chocolate doom.
side-anecdote: i was having trouble with something in chocolate doom on stream and fraggle himself told me to update my chocolate doom. have i done that yet? i should check......

11 minutes ago, printz said:

Can't ZScript achieve what GZScoreDoom was doing?

Maybe. But there's 0% incentive to do that.

4 hours ago, Edward850 said:

I think GZDoom's main problem is more to do with it being a more "jack of all trades" thing. It's not particularly good at playing any one Doom based game (except maybe Hexen? I'm not sure how accurate its Hexen is), and coupled with its default settings, results in a comparatively distant replication. If you wanted a Doom example, its default behavior for the invisibility sphere is of Hexen, not Doom, drastically changing its gameplay.

The invisibility behavior originates in Heretic and the reason it defaults to that is, if I remember correctly, the majority opinion of forum users at the time when it was decided to restore the original. Don't forget that long ago ZDoom completely eliminated that option!

But why are you picking out ZDoom here? Playing Boom (the original) and MBF on default settings is exhibiting the same amount, if not even more of gameplay related issues. This has been standard operating procedure for ports when the source was freshly released. The main difference is that those two ports are dead and replaced by now but GZDoom still has to work with that 20 year legacy of mods for different default setups.

What are Eternity's defaults anyway? Boom or vanilla? If it's Boom, welcome to the club!

4 hours ago, Edward850 said:

 

I also think its Strife Veteran Edition support could be far better than it currently is.

Agreed. But I guess that's the difference between a full feature implementation and making the things work that could be made to work. If you look at the changes that were made, it was all relatively superficial, but the remaining things require far deeper investigation of the existing implementation and how to translate it to another port. At least that's what I got from the discussion when it was hot. On the other hand, does any other port out there even support Strife?

7 hours ago, Hell Theatre said:

Eternity: Two issues strike me: A) It's about features but makes absolutely no effort to run feature-rich maps made for other ports.

Possibly because those maps are....wait for it... made for other ports?
 

Eternity sticking to its scope is a good thing. Supporting other source ports' maps makes sense only if those maps are part of that port's history. Why would I expect Eternity to play ZDoom maps? ZDoom exists to play ZDoom maps. I wouldn't use ZDoom or GZDoom to play Eternity maps, that's absurd!

GZDoom running Legacy maps is understandable though, because Legacy at the time was not maintained and didn't work properly with modern systems, leaving a handful of maps and TCs in an unplayable state. It made more sense to tailor another source port to run Legacy maps than it was to fix Legacy to run on modern systems. Legacy also required 512 MB RAM to run something that had 1/12 the complexity of something like Action Doom. Now, should I expect Eternity to play Legacy maps too? 

7 hours ago, Hell Theatre said:

B) Of the feature centric ports it is the only one without a hardware renderer

I'll be honest with you, hardware renderers in ports these days make Doom look worse than GL Quake. Then again, GL Quake had lightmaps! Okay, okay, that's a little harsh. Strife VE has lightmaps (no really it does) so I'm shocked that a certain source port that shall not be named hasn't ripped the code yet!

Here is my top three:

1) PrBoom+, for excellent and extended demo support, I use it almost for everything, except ZDoom wads.
2) GZDoom, because some cool mods and also for wads which can not run in PrBoom+. GL renderer preferred.
3) Doom Legacy, because it's the first source port which I used back in the days, that time I learn many Doom tricks.